R. v. C. (R.), 2010 ONCJ 447

Statute: Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act,
Section: s 348
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Dog, Reptile,
Type of Distress: Killing of a pet gecko with a microwave during a break and enter and abusing a family dog by covering him with paint during a breaking and entering/vandalism and theft spree
Sentence: 14-month youth sentence, but because he had already spent significant time in pre-trial custody, he received credit that reduced the remainder of his sentence to 171 days. The remaining sentence was divided into 57 days in secure custody, 57 days in open custody, and 57 days under community supervision, followed by 18 months of probation; 10-year weapons prohibition and DNA sample order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

R.C. was a youth who, together with a co-accused, committed a series of residential break and enters. While the thefts themselves were serious, the case was particularly notable because of the senseless destruction inside the homes. The offenders vandalized multiple residences by spreading paint, leaving feces on floors, destroying personal belongings, and ransacking entire houses. They also microwaved and killed a nine-year-old child’s pet gecko and covered a family dog in paint. The judge described the damage as “mind-blowing” and emphasized that there was no apparent motive beyond amusement while intoxicated (para 2).

The offender had a significant youth criminal record and was already subject to multiple probation orders when these offences were committed. A psychological assessment diagnosed him with conduct disorder, ADHD (hyperactive-impulsive type), substance abuse disorder, and antisocial personality traits. Although he came from a relatively stable home with a supportive mother and step-father, he had a long history of defying authority, skipping school, associating with negative peers, and abusing drugs and alcohol. The clinical assessment also noted that there existed indication that the biological father of R.C exhibited similar antisocial & criminal behaviours, which presents as another strong factor to explain the accused’s conduct. He admitted that he and his co-accused committed the break-ins because they considered themselves “professionals” and, after becoming drunk, decided to “have fun and trash the homes” (para 7). While in custody, however, he showed meaningful improvement by participating in counselling, Alcoholics Anonymous, educational programs, and life skills training, and he expressed genuine remorse for his actions.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that further incarceration was necessary despite the offender’s recent progress. The judge accepted that youth sentencing principles required the least restrictive sentence capable of promoting rehabilitation and reintegration, but concluded that the gravity of the offences, the offender’s criminal history, repeated failures on probation, and ongoing need for structure justified additional custody. The court agreed with the Crown that these offences were far more serious than a typical residential break and enter because of the malicious destruction and cruelty inflicted on the family’s pets.

This case is particularly relevant because it demonstrates how animal cruelty can significantly aggravate an already serious property offence. The judge repeatedly emphasized that the deliberate killing of a child’s pet and the abuse of the family dog elevated the offending well beyond ordinary break and enters. The victim impact statements also highlighted the lasting emotional harm caused, particularly to the children, who lost their sense of security and were traumatized by the death of the pet gecko. Although the court acknowledged the offender’s mental health diagnoses, substance abuse issues, and encouraging rehabilitation while in custody, it stressed that accountability remained necessary given the shocking and senseless nature of the offences and the profound impact on the victims.

https://canlii.ca/t/2csz4
R v C (R)

R c. S. (L.-P.), 2003 CarswellQue 780

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 434, 445, and 446(1)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Alleged distress (per the Crown's theory) would have been the dog being struck/killed with an iron bar or left chained inside a burning shed
Sentence: Accused found guilty of arson (s. 434 C.cr.) but acquitted of both animal cruelty charges; no sentence set out in this decision
Legal Issue: Suffering, Unnecessary, Wilfulness,

This case involved a 13-year-old adolescent charged with arson (s. 434 C.cr.) after deliberately setting fire to a wooden shed on December 17, 2002, resulting in the death of the shed tenant’s dog (a doberman/German shepherd hybrid) whose body was found in the debris, as well as a separate charge of having intentionally killed an animal or caused it to suffer pain, suffering, or injury without necessity (ss. 445, 446(1)(a) C.cr.).

The accused admitted responsibility for the fire but denied having intentionally harmed or killed the dog, claiming he did not know the dog was inside and had unsuccessfully tried to free it by pulling on its chain once he heard it. The Crown’s theory was that the accused had either struck or killed the dog with an iron bar before dragging it into the shed and setting the fire to conceal his act, or had lured the dog into the shed and fastened its chain to the ground with metal hooks before igniting the fire; this theory rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, since no witness saw the act and no physical evidence (such as a weapon, drag marks, or forced entry) was found.

Applying the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and the standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Cooper, the court found the accused’s version of events plausible and consistent with the physical evidence (the fire’s point of origin, the location of the debris he admitted throwing, the location of the dog’s body, and an independent witness’s account of the accused playing alone in the yard without hearing the dog). The court held that while it was probable the accused had killed or trapped the dog, this was not the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, given key gaps such as the absence of proof of the cause of death, no weapon found, no evidence of forced entry, and no proof the dog had been beaten or dragged into the shed.

The court found the accused guilty of intentionally causing a fire (arson, s. 434 C.cr.) but acquitted him of both animal cruelty charges — intentionally killing an animal (s. 445(a) C.cr.) and causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily (s. 446(1)(a) C.cr.) — on the basis that the Crown had not proven guilt on those counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case is a useful illustration of the application of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility test and the R. v. Cooper circumstantial evidence standard in the animal cruelty context, showing that even where circumstances make an accused’s guilt “probable,” this is legally insufficient — the Crown must eliminate other reasonable inferences to secure a conviction. The decision is also notable for the split verdict: the accused was convicted of the underlying property offence (arson) while being acquitted of the animal cruelty charges arising from the same set of facts, illustrating how a young accused’s confession and consistent narrative on one charge can still leave reasonable doubt on a related but factually distinct charge, particularly where physical/forensic evidence linking the accused to the animal’s death is absent.

https://nextcanada-westlaw-com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/Document/I4b0209ea32516a6fe0440003ba0d6c6d/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
R c S (L-P)

Abed (Re), (2025) ORBD No 1634

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 672.81(2)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Striking police service dog in the head and body
Sentence: Absolute discharge
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure,

On August 27, 2021, Haitham Abed engaged in a violent episode at his residence in London, Ontario. During the incident, he struck a police service dog with wooden balusters, causing soft tissue damage to the animal’s left shoulder and forearm and a cut to the gumline (para. 9). He also assaulted a police officer and damaged property. Mr. Abed was subsequently found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder and diagnosed with schizophrenia. On January 22, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordered a conditional discharge.

Following a hospital request for an early review of his conditional discharge disposition, the Board reconvened on July 3, 2025 at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences pursuant to s. 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code to determine whether he could be safely granted an absolute discharge. Based on the updated hospital report, the offender had continued to live successfully in the community since his last annual hearing in January 2025, was engaged in employment and has maintained his independent apartment and had contact with the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) not less than once every two weeks dictated by the Ontario Review Board Disposition (para. 15). Further evidence from the hospital doctor overseeing the offender’s care provided that the offender remained stable and understood that without medication, he will become psychotic and that it was the opinion of the treatment team that his violent risk factors had been mitigated (paras. 16 to 17).

This evidence as well as the offender’s continued medication compliance, mental stability, insight into illness, community reintegration, and family support led to the ORB granting him absolute discharge on August 1, 2025.

https://canlii.ca/t/kdn53
Abed (Re)

R v Abernethy, 2025 BCPC 201

Statute: SPCA Act (BC),
Section: ss. 24(1), 24(3)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Neglect,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Failure to attend to animal's health condition, lack of veterinary care
Sentence: $5,000 fine, with two-years of probation, and a lifelong provincial animal prohibition order
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Fines), Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Suitable care,

The 68-year-old accused was the owner of a 14-year-old Shitzu, Sarah. Sarah was found in severe conditions of dehydration and emaciation, with a ruptured eye, leg wound infection and maggot infestation. She was taken to the vet by a family friend of the accused, where she was euthanized.

The accused was charged for neglecting to attend to Sarah’s health condition; the Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence followed by a 12-month probation order, requiring him to attend counselling, and a lifetime animal prohibition order under s. 24(3). The accused denied the alleged offence of neglect by claiming his own mental and financial conditions prevented him from properly attending to Sarah’s needs and protested against the animal prohibition order, arguing that he had always been an animal lover and lacked the mens rea to cause any suffering to his pet (para. 6). However, because provincial offences are strict liability offences, the lack of mens rea is not a defence.

Determining that the accused’s moral culpability was low due to his mental state at the time of the offence but still relying on the principle of denunciation and deterrence, the Court determined that appropriate sentencing was a $5000 fine, a two-year probation, and lifetime animal prohibition order. The Court noted that the accused had not expressed insight into his actions and continued “to feel he has been unjustly interfered with by the authorities and maintains his beliefs about animals being allowed to die “naturally” (para. 17). It also noted that the animal prohibition order would be most useful as a deterrent because the accused’s “need to care for animals is so compelling he has taken to keeping bees while under bail conditions which prevent him from owning pets” (para. 40). Any yet, the accused also demonstrated a “a history of neglecting important things that required his attention”: when Sarah’s sister Susie passed away, the ground was too frozen to dig a grave so the accused kept her body in his house for months until his former wife prompted him to dispose of it, therefore that would be reasonable grounds to believe that if the accused were to obtain another animal, “he may again become blind to its needs” (para. 41).

https://canlii.ca/t/kgr6s
R v Abernethy,2025 BCPC 201

R. v. Hall, 2025 MBPC 34

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 490.012, s. 161, s. 109, s. 164.2
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of child sexual abuse material including bestiality
Sentence: Three years imprisonment; 20-year SOIRA order, 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA and device forfeiture orders, as well as restrictions on access to internet and children
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Common defenses (Legal excuse), Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

The 41-year-old accused Gregory Hall was charged with possession of 427 images and 34 unique videos across a number of devices, including 5,163 files categorized as “investigative interest” on his Samsung device. These files contain mostly images of females aged between 8 to 12, with images and videos depicting bestiality as an aggravating feature. This material was part of a broader collection characterized by a “high degree of depravity”.

The accused denied any sexual interest in child and recollection of collecting the images and videos due to the memory loss caused by brain tumor and subsequent seizures starting in 2020. He submitted a letter from his oncologist stating that his type of tumor can cause him to “experience periods of short-memory loss.”

The sentencing judge firmly rejected the accused’s claim that his medical condition reduced his moral culpability or justified a non-custodial sentence. The court held there was “no evidence of any nexus between the accused’s medical condition and his offending” (para. 62). There was no evidence it impaired his understanding that his actions were wrong or harmful. The court emphasized that for CSAM offences, denunciation and deterrence are paramount. The horrific nature of the material, including bestiality, the large collection, the number of child victims, and the significant harm caused, demanded a penitentiary sentence to reflect societal condemnation.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbstl
R v Hall 2025 MBPC 34

R. c. Richer 2025 QCCQ 1315

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 267(a), 267(b), 279(2)(a), 145(5)(a)
Province or Territory: Quebec,
Offence: Unknown,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Criminal history of animal cruelty in a domestic violence context
Sentence: 12 months' imprisonment, plus a 10-year weapons prohibition and two years' probation
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

The accused assaulted his intimate partner while intoxicated during an argument. He struck and pushed the victim, held her on the ground with his knee on her neck, and threw a chair in her direction. The victim suffered physical injuries and psychological consequences. After his arrest and release on conditions, the accused later breached those conditions by contacting the victim and violating his curfew. He ultimately pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and breaches of release conditions.

The Court noted numerous aggravating factors, including the severity of the assault, the impact on the victim, the accused’s intoxication at the time of the offence, repeated breaches of court orders, and his prior criminal history. In 2014, the accused was given a suspended sentence and probation with 125 hours of service for assault, uttering threats, forcible confinement, animal cruelty and possession of a weapon while prohibited from doing so, all in a context of domestic violence (para. 24). Mitigating factors included the accused’s guilty pleas; that he is an “asset to society” as a master mechanic and that the accused completed the follow-up offered by the Addiction Rehabilitation Centre regarding their problematic use of alcohol.

The Court sentenced the accused to 12 months’ imprisonment, finding that a custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the violence and to achieve denunciation and deterrence. This case made reference to the violence link between interpersonal violence and animal abuse, as the Court referred to the historical animal cruelty as part of the broader pattern of violent behaviour considered during sentencing.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbp21
R. c. Richer 2025 QCCQ 1315 (FR)

The Animal Control Officer (CSRD) v Burger, 2025 BCPC 247

Statute: Other,
Section: Community Charter, SBC 2003, Ch 26, s 49(1)(10)
Province or Territory: British Columbia,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Unprovoked attacks by the dog on people, causing injury; owners failed to properly confine and control the animal
Sentence: The dog, Luna, was ordered to be humanely euthanized no sooner than 14 days after the making of the order
Legal Issue: Provincial case (Disposition of animals), Maim/Wound/Injure, Ownership/Care/Control,

In June and October 2024, Luna, a female Mastiff-Rottweiler cross-type dog, escaped from her owners, Sandra and Colin Burger’s property on three occasions and attacked individuals, including two incidents that caused serious injuries requiring medical attention. On June 21, 2024, following complaints, Animal Control Officers visited the Burgers’ property. Mr. Burger acknowledged that the perimeter fence had holes allowing the dogs to escape and run at large occasionally. He demonstrated shock collars, but the officers observed the dogs’ behaviour was unaffected. Despite being cautioned about a potential future application to declare the dog dangerous, the Burgers did not implement effective measures to prevent further incidents.

Following these incidents, the Animal Control Officer of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District brought forward an application under s. 49(10) of the Community Charter seeking a declaration that Luna was a dangerous dog and an order for her destruction. Under s. 49(1)(a) of the Community Charter, a “dangerous dog” includes a dog that has killed or seriously injured a person.

The Burgers proposed a containment plan, including the construction and maintenance of the perimeter fences, protocols to prevent accidental escape, management of the ‘pack effect’ with their other two dogs, the retention of a dog trainer, restraint equipment and the financial resources to fund this plan (para 32).

The court relied on witness testimony, incident reports and expert evidence from notable animal behaviour and welfare scientist Dr. Rebecca Ledger, who assessed Luna’s behaviour as territorial and movement-triggered aggression, noting that Luna did not respond to her training (para 28). Additionally, Dr. Ledger testified to great skepticism about the Burgers’ containment plan, highlighting that it lacked expert guidance and failed to meet the detailed requirements she had outlined (paras 45-47). Dr. Ledger concluded that the risk to the public remained significant (para 33). The judge also observed that the Burgers minimized the seriousness of the incidents and the danger Luna presented to the community (para 54).

Based on the evidence, the court held that Luna is a dangerous dog and cannot be safely returned to the Burgers’ (para 58). She was ordered to be humanely euthanized by or under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, and that this is to occur no sooner than 14 days after the making of this order (para 60).

 

https://canlii.ca/t/khqkg
Animal Control Officer v Burger 2025 BCPC 247

R v Hijazi, 2025 ABCJ 41

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 163.1(4)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Bestiality, Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of child sexual abuse material including bestiality
Sentence: Two years less a day conditional sentence with strict house arrest. 240 hours of community service within the first 18 months of the Conditional sentence Order, followed by three years of probation with conditions, plus a DNA order.
Legal Issue: Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

Google alerted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that a user, Abdul-Rahman Hijazi, had downloaded 54 illegal images. Police executed a warrant at his home and seized ten devices containing 4,088 images and four videos of child pornography. The images depict explicit sexual activity involving children, including bondage and bestiality. Almost all of the images were computer-generated, and all but one of the images involving sexual activity and the images of bondage and bestiality were anime or computer-generated.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. The Crown sought incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

Applying the s. 718.2 sentencing principles, the Judge identified the aggravating factors: the offending conduct spanned nearly three years, the size of the collection of over 4000 images, and some of the material depicting anime images of bestiality and bondage. Mitigating factors included Mr. Hijazi’s youth, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending, early guilty plea, expressed remorse, and voluntary counselling. The court also emphasized that while possession of computer-generated child sexual abuse images is grave conduct, it does not involve the same level of harm as material created through the abuse of real children. Accordingly, a lower sentence than what would apply to comparable real-child material was warranted.

The presentencing report revealed that the offender began having feelings that he wanted to transition his gender to female in 2022 and became depressed about his gender. The offender was reluctant to disclose these feelings as it would lead to separation from his religious and cultural identity but has recently started transitioning to female (para. 16)

A forensic psychiatrist conducted a risk and mental health assessment, where the offender was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, ADHD, likely adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, and depressive features and assessed at low risk to sexually re-offend. The report writer considered whether the possession of child pornography was connected to reported sexual abuse when the offender experienced at ages 13 and 14. The report stated that the offender “admits guilt, remorse, repentance but never truly explains what was the drive and motivation in accessing these images and videos, ranging age wise from age 3 to age 16 of female bodies; there could be a connection with a sexual abuse he would have been victim of by an older cousin” (para. 23).

Court’s Decision:

The Court imposed a two-year less a day conditional sentence with strict house arrest to give effect to the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the secondary sentencing principles of restraint and rehabilitation. The offender will also be subject to 240 hours of community service within the first 18 months of the Conditional sentence Order, followed by three years of probation with conditions, plus a DNA order.

https://canlii.ca/t/kbgkj
R v Hijazi 2025 ABCJ 41

Hesson (Re), 2025 CanLII 23548 (ON RB)

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s 672.81(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Abuse, Unknown,
Animal: Other, Unknown,
Type of Distress: Criminal harassment of female neighbour; historical charge of injuring an animal while experiencing psychosis
Sentence: Conditional discharge with monthly reporting
Legal Issue: Conduct orders, Maim/Wound/Injure, Procedure,

This is a decision from the Ontario Review Board at the annual hearing of Dimitri Hesson, who was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) on a charge of criminal harassment for which he was detained for repeatedly knocking on the neighbour’s door asking for sex. The central legal question was whether Mr. Hesson continued to pose a “significant threat” to public safety, which would justify his continued detention under a conditional discharge as the least onerous course of action (para. 5).

The Board’s analysis of future dangerousness heavily weighed his previous NCR finding from 2008, which involved two key charges: first, assaulting a peace officer, and second, injuring an animal. The Board repeatedly references this history to establish a pattern of violence that emerges when Mr. Hesson’s schizophrenia is unmedicated. Dr. Gojer, the psychiatrist, testified that Mr. Hesson’s risk of future violence is moderate, based partly on past behaviours including “physically assaultive behaviour” reported in the hospital risk assessment and the explicit mention of the prior animal cruelty charge (para. 24). The Board connects this history to his current diagnosis, noting he has a “history of violent offending when he has been psychotic,” (para. 41) with the animal cruelty forming part of that violent history.

The Board ultimately found that Mr. Hesson remains a significant threat, not because he is currently violent, but because his history in violent behaviour and animal cruelty, his chronic illness, and his pattern of disengagement from treatment suggest a likelihood of decompensation and a return to behaviours that have caused serious psychological (and potentially physical) harm in the past. The most recent incidents resulted within two years of receiving an absolute discharge on his previous conviction, therefore past behaviour cannot be overlooked (para. 42).

https://canlii.ca/t/kb5xd

R. v. Neverson, 2025 ONSC 7121

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: section 445(1)(a), section 718
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Killing a dog in the context of trafficking/relationship violence
Sentence: Time served of just under seven years (reduced due to abuse accused received in pretrial custody at Maplehurst Correction Centre in December 2023)
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment),

The 36-year-old accused Jermaine Never pleaded guilty to 22 offence, including human trafficking, assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawfully killing of a dog, which is contrary to s.445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Neverson had victimized 10 women over 8 years, with the dog-killing incident as part of a pattern of his violent behaviour. This incident occurred when a dog who belonged to one of his female victims had a bathroom accident on the floor, after which he became enraged and beat the dog to death. He then forced the female victim that owned the dog to bury them in a rural area.

The court emphasized Neverson’s extremely high moral culpability across all offences, including the killing of the dog. The act was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of exploitative conduct; his victims were vulnerable women due to their relative youth, poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, isolation, family breakdown, and their history of trauma that the accused intimidated and manipulated, trafficking them as sex trade workers, as well as abused them, kept their money, and left them with very little, treating them as slaved (para. 5). The court cited s. 718.03 of the Criminal Code, which requires that primary consideration be given to denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for offences involving cruelty to animals, and for the sexually exploitative violence exhibited by the accused.

While the dog-killing offence carried a maximum sentence of five years, the court imposed a global sentence for all 22 offences. The sentence for the animal cruelty charge was made concurrent with other sentences, which were reduced due to the treatment he received as a result of the deployment of the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (“ICIT”) at Maplehurst Correctional Complex (“MCC”) in December 2023. The accused’s application for a stay of proceedings due to Charter violations experienced at this time was dismissed (para 71).

The animal cruelty offence reinforced the court’s conclusion that Neverson’s actions were calculated, prolonged, and intended to inflict psychological harm. It contributed to the court’s assessment that his moral blameworthiness was “as high as one could imagine.”

https://canlii.ca/t/kh744
R v Neverson 2025 ONSC 712